From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 23:00:08 -0800
> I'm very open to potential patches to do this, just don't ignore the
> issues that others have run into in the past when attempting this.
Fair enough.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:13:08AM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 10:00:06PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > Ok, no, I didn't write that patch, I'm getting very confused here.
> >
> > In 2.6.24-rc6 there is no usage of debugfs in the ohci driver.
> >
> > In the -mm tree t
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 09:25:01PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:18:28 -0800
>
> > But is the usage of this semaphore in the class code really a problem?
> > Has it been seen to cause issues anywhere? Does it show up on any
> > benchmark
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 10:00:06PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> Ok, no, I didn't write that patch, I'm getting very confused here.
>
> In 2.6.24-rc6 there is no usage of debugfs in the ohci driver.
>
> In the -mm tree there is a patch, from Tony Jones, that moves some debug
> code out of sysfs an
On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Karsten Wiese wrote:
> How about:
> Urbs stopping/starting at (uFrame % 8) != 0 can share ITDs,
If there's a problem in that area, it should get fixed in a
patch just addressing that issue. Did you mention such an
issue before?
> The finishing urb doesn't recycle its
On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Karsten Wiese wrote:
> > > Just tried this alone ontop git head with ICH8M inside without success:
> > > that is the snd-usb-us122l driver thinks something doesn't work out right.
> > > No details yet,
> >
> > What do you mean by "without success" though? Are you sayin
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 11:26:43AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 12:49:52PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > > It looks like Greg misused the debugfs API -- which is ironic, because
> > > > he wrote debugfs in the first place! :-)
> > >
On Jan 2, 2008 1:18 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:54:53AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 2007 1:07 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 03:07:30PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > > On Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Dave Youn
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:18:28 -0800
> But is the usage of this semaphore in the class code really a problem?
> Has it been seen to cause issues anywhere? Does it show up on any
> benchmarks as being something that really needs to be replaced?
It's a question of
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:54:53AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2007 1:07 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 03:07:30PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > On Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 29, 2007 12:42 PM
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 05:51:43PM +, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Sarah Sharp wrote:
> >Hi Daniel,
> >
> >Have you looked at usbfs2? It sounds like usbfs2 and fpusb have some
> >similar
> >goals, although I admit I only glanced briefly at your wiki.
>
> Reading your email again, I should probably
Thanks - it was a udev issue.
On Jan 1, 2008 1:42 PM, Matthew Dharm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks like sd_mod isn't loaded. You need to figure out why that is; it's
> usually done by udev in response to a direct-access device being detected.
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 01:19:20PM
On Dec 30, 2007 6:01 AM, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Dave Young wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Dec 29, 2007 12:42 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:36:49AM +0800, D
On Dec 30, 2007 1:07 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 03:07:30PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Dec 29, 2007 12:42 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:
-- forgot to cc the list --
Am Dienstag, 1. Januar 2008 schrieb David Brownell:
> On Tuesday 01 January 2008, you wrote:
> > Am Montag, 31. Dezember 2007 schrieb David Brownell:
> > > >
> > > > The "Only Recycle ITD, if the (8uFrames long)frame it ends in,
> > > > has elap
Am Montag, 31. Dezember 2007 schrieb David Brownell:
> >
> > Differences in this version:
> >
> > In patch 1:
> > - itd_complete() split into 3 functions, assures schedule is updated
> > before ITD is recycled and lets
> > - updates to ehci->periodic_sched happen per urb again
> > - SITD handli
On Tuesday 01 January 2008, steve birtles wrote:
> >> The YL-9200 board switches a transistor to provide pullup
> >
> > Presumably driving through a pulldown, so that when the board resets
> > it doesn't wrongly present itself as ready to respond to a USB host.
> >
>
> I'm just the fire brigad
Hi David,
On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:36 AM, David Brownell wrote:
The YL-9200 board switches a transistor to provide pullup
Presumably driving through a pulldown, so that when the board resets
it doesn't wrongly present itself as ready to respond to a USB host.
I'm just the fire brigade call
Am Montag, 31. Dezember 2007 schrieb David Brownell:
> >
> > The "Only Recycle ITD, if the (8uFrames long)frame it ends in,
> > has elapsed"-feature is missing, no?
> > IIRC, things only started working here on VIA with it.
> > Should I test this none the less?
>
> Yes, but on non-VIA hardwa
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 04:55:21PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Bruce Schultz wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a USB SD card reader which has never worked properly and finally got
> > me
> > annoyed enough to try to do something about it. Using a 2.6.22 kernel
> > (gentoo), I
Looks like sd_mod isn't loaded. You need to figure out why that is; it's
usually done by udev in response to a direct-access device being detected.
Matt
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 01:19:20PM -0500, Genera Guillory wrote:
> I have a Sandisk Micro Flash Drive and I have removed the U3 stuff
> using t
I have a Sandisk Micro Flash Drive and I have removed the U3 stuff
using the Sandisk tool and reformated the drive from Windows. Windows
has no problem seeing the drive. Now when I switch to Linux 2.6.18
and plug in the device it is recognized - here is what shows up in the
logs
Jan 1 12:33:59 f
> The YL-9200 board switches a transistor to provide pullup
Presumably driving through a pulldown, so that when the board resets
it doesn't wrongly present itself as ready to respond to a USB host.
> This modification adds a field to allow the state of the pin
> level to be specified
Hi,
Patch as attachment to prevent mailer messing format.
The YL-9200 board switches a transistor to provide pullup, as a
result the usb code is incorrect in that it assumes
all boards use 'active' high on a pin to pull up the USB state.
This modification adds a field to allow the
24 matches
Mail list logo
